From: Deborah McGuinness (dlm@ksl.stanford.edu)
Date: 01/11/01
sorry - maybe this was partially my fault. i thought ian was keeping the model-theoretic semantics document on his site up to date (and i thought peter and ian might have been talking about any changes to that document). if peter is offline, this was what peter sent to mike dean and me on jan 10th at 10:13 am pacific time it also has an encoded revision date of: $Revision: 1.4$ of $Date: 2001/01/09$ corresponding to the DAML+OIL version of 2001/01/10. It does differ from what ian has up. I searched my mail and have nothing more recent from peter. It would be best to get the final word from peter. d Ian Horrocks wrote: > I was not aware that I was the owner of the model-theoretic semantics. The > semantics file on my site was the new one that included the proposed > concrete datatype stuff. > > To save any confusion I have now moved the concrete datatype proposal into > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/Datatypes > > and I have put the latest version of the semantics without concrete > datatypes in the > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/semantics.html > > However, I am not sure that this is the very latest version. Peter, could > you urgently check this and send Mike and me the latest version without > datatypes. > > Sorry for any confusion I may have caused if it was my fault; if it wasn't > my fault, sorry anyway (British through and through). > > Ian > > On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Deborah Mcguinness wrote: > > > this is great - thx for the work. > > > > just to be clear, i think point 1 means going to three place for 8 updates: > > > > http://www.ksl.Stanford.EDU/people/dlm/daml-semantics/ > > for the axiomatic semantics > > > > http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/DAML+OIL/ > > for the examples > > walkthru > > and reference > > > > and > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/ > > for daml+oil spec > > the 2 differences files > > model-theoretic semantics > > > > so we have a total of 8 documents > > > > and for releasing on the 11th.... there are benefits to being in the us... gaining some > > time at the end of aday :-) > > > > d > > > > Frank van Harmelen wrote: > > > > > As Ian, I have incorporated all changes requested until now. > > > Also, the comments are getting really minor, so we seem to have convergence. > > > > > > Mike, I suggest you > > > [1] copy the files from the usual locations, > > > [2] remove the versioning info simply remove the style def's in the header, > > > or (more cumbersome), remove all span elements) > > > [3] checks that all the links work (there was some renaming of files, so PLEASE CHECK) > > > > > > and ask Jim to announce our labor to the world. > > > > > > If you want to release on the 11th, this is your chance! > > > > > > Frank. > > > ---- > > > > -- > Ian Horrocks, Department of Computer Science, > University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK. > Tel: +44 161 275 6133 Fax: +44 161 275 6204 Email: horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk > WWW: http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks -- Deborah L. McGuinness Knowledge Systems Laboratory Gates Computer Science Building, 2A Room 241 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9020 email: dlm@ksl.stanford.edu URL: http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/index.html (voice) 650 723 9770 (stanford fax) 650 725 5850 (computer fax) 801 705 0941
Feedback to www-rdf-logic,
please.
Peter Patel-Schneider, ed.
$Revision: 1.4$ of $Date: 2001/01/09$
corresponding to the DAML+OIL version of 2001/01/10.
This document provides a terse specification of the model-theoretic semantics for DAML+OIL.
A DAML+OIL ontology (or knowledge base) is a collection of RDF triples. Some of these triples are relevant to DAML+OIL and some are not. This semantics only treats the triples that are obviously relevant to DAML+OIL and ignores the rest.
This document says nothing about how the collection of RDF triples is obtained. This document ignores all aspects of naming and importing. Thus it has nothing to do with the meaning of Ontology or versionInfo or imports. (The intended meaning of imports is that the RDF triples of the referenced ontology are included in the RDF triples of the current ontology.)
Names in this document are qualified if they come from other namespaces than the DAML+OIL namespace. (Think of the names as if the following XML namespace definitions are present:
Several DAML+OIL constructs accept a list. The semantic mappings show these lists as [x1,...,xn] in the interests of brevity and clarity.
The semantics is specified via mappings from syntactic structures to constraints on semantic structures. Most mappings have have formal parameters signified by means of a leading ``?''. Some mappings require the presence of several triples.
Consider a DAML+OIL ontology in the form of a collection of RDF triples. A semantic structure <DD,IC,IO,IR> is a model for the DAML+OIL ontology if the constraints resulting from the mappings from the ontology are true in the structure.
First we include a few redundant mappings. The semantic constraints rising from these mapping follow from the setup of the semantic structure above and from the definitions in the syntax document, but are included here for emphasis.
| Syntactic Structure | Semantic Constraint |
|---|---|
| <rdf:type,?C,rdfs:Class> | IC(?C) <= DD |
| <rdf:type,?C,Restriction> | IC(?C) <= DD |
| <rdf:type,?R,rdf:Property> | IR(?R) <= DD x DD |
| IC(Thing) = DD | |
| IC(Nothing) = { } |
Now for the real semantic mappings.
| Syntactic Structure | Semantic Constraint |
|---|---|
| <rdf:type,?O,?C> | IO(?O) in IC(?C) |
| <?R,?O1,?O2> | <IO(?O1),IO(?O2)> in IR(?R) |
| <rdfs:subClassOf,?C,?D> | IC(?C) <= IC(?D) |
| <rdfs:subPropertyOf,?R,?S> | IR(?R) <= IR(?S) |
| <sameClassAs,?C,?D> | IC(?C) = IC(?D) |
| <samePropertyAs,?R,?S> | IR(?R) = IR(?S) |
| <disjointWith,?X,?Y> | IC(?X) ^ IC(?Y) = { } |
| <rdf:type,[?X1,...,?Xn],Disjoint> | IC(?Xi) ^ IC(?Xj) = { } for all 1<=i<j<=n. |
| <unionOf,?C,[?X1,...,?Xn]> | IC(?C) = IC(?X1) v ... v IC(?Xn) |
| <disjointUnionOf,?C,[?X1,...,?Xn]> | IC(?C) = IC(?X1) v ... v IC(?Xn) |
| IC(?Xi) ^ IC(?Xj) = { } for 1<=i<j<=n. | |
| <intersectionOf,?C,[?X1,...,?Xn]> | IC(?C) = IC(?X1) ^ ... ^ IC(?Xn) |
| <complementOf,?X,?Y> | IC(?X) ^ IC(?Y) = { } |
| IC(?X) v IC(?Y) = DD | |
| <oneOf,?C,[?O1,...,?On]> | IC(?C) = { IO(?O1),..., IO(?On) } |
| <rdfs:domain,?P,?C> | if <x,y> in IR(?P) then x in IC(?C) |
| <rdfs:range,?P,?C> | if <x,y> in IR(?P) then y in IC(?C) |
| <inverseOf,?R,?S> | <x,y> in IR(?R) iff <y,x> in IR(?S) |
| <rdf:type,?R,TransitiveProperty> | if <x,y> in IR(?R) and <y,z> in IR(?R) then <x,z> in IR(?R) |
| <rdf:type,?R,UniqueProperty> | if <x,y> in IR(?R) and <x,z> in IR(?R) then y=z |
| <rdf:type,?R,UnambiguousProperty> | if <x,y> in IR(?R) and <z,y> in IR(?R) then x=z |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <toClass,?R,?C> | x in IC(?R) iff IR(?P)({x}) <= IC(?C) |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <hasValue,?R,?V> | x in IC(?R) iff <x,IO(?V)> in IR(?P)> |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <hasClass,?R,?C> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) ^ IC(?C) | > 0 |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <minCardinality,?R,?n> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) | >= ?n |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <maxCardinality,?R,?n> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) | <= ?n |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <cardinality,?R,?n> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) | = ?n |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <minCardinalityQ,?R,?n> <hasClassQ,?R,?C> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) ^ IC(?C) | >= ?n |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <maxCardinalityQ,?R,?n> <hasClassQ,?R,?C> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) ^ IC(?C) | <= ?n |
| <rdf:type,?R,Restriction> <onProperty,?R,?P> <cardinalityQ,?R,?n> <hasClassQ,?R,?C> | x in IC(?R) iff | IR(?P)({x}) ^ IC(?C) | = ?n |
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST